3 ms·
The most frequent gotcha with this kind of arithmetic is treating the streets as if they were already there, free of charge, whereas the subway tunnels, bridges
by DemocracyFTW2 2y ago
The most frequent gotcha with this kind of arithmetic is treating the streets as if they were already there, free of charge, whereas the subway tunnels, bridges and rails all enter explicitly into the grand total.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> most frequent gotcha with this kind of arithmetic is treating the streets as if they were already there This seems fair when comparing buses to Waymos.
- DemocracyFTW2 2y agoBig part of SF's public transport is rail-based. Buses are often the cheapest option to implement public transport in places that have only cars for obvious reasons. However, buses are also not very fast and, additionally, get stuck in the daily traffic jam together with everybody else unless you dedicate space to them (bus lanes). When I lived in Taipei in the 90s they had just implemented a scheme where they would dedicate each vein of the urban grid to traffic in a single direction. Because of the way the very broad streets were built, they had a dedicated bus lane to downtown in a street dedicated to outgoing traffic. They did not see the necessity for a bus lane in the opposite direction, meaning in the morning I had a commute not unlike a Star Trek transporter, while returning home meant agonizing hours of being stuck.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> Big part of SF's public transport is rail-based Right, keep that and keep investing in that. The tweet's point, if borne out, is the bus system could be replicated with better service at similar or lower cost. That either makes the system better. Or it frees up resources to pump into rail.